For example I like the 2.76 ratio of Ben Hur, but for a movie like Buried, where the whole movie takes place inside a coffin, perhaps, that's too wide for such a tight setting. Do you take the tightness of the settings into account, or do you just choose whichever you think is the best looking regardless?
What aspect ratio do you filmmakers prefer, and how do you choose?
- Thread starter harmonica44
- Start date
My final product right now is Blu-ray and flat screen TV's so I shoot exclusively in 16:9
Okay. So why has the wider formats like 2.76 are so unpopular nowadays?
Asked and answered 3 months ago, but to recap
2.4 for epic feel
1.85 for normal movie
16x9 television
16x10 computer monitor
Cinemascope (2.76) if you plan to release a film in the 50's or 60's (time machine required)
3D if you are overbudgeted
Chemical film if they gave you 3x as much time as you need to shoot
16mm for retro look, or Noir on a budget
F35 for premium digital look or digital backlot pictures
4:3 if you are hopelessly behind the times
48x10 for 3 pack digital signage monitors
1.5x9 for web headers
Anamorphic 2.4 for Sci-fi
2.4 for epic feel
1.85 for normal movie
16x9 television
16x10 computer monitor
Cinemascope (2.76) if you plan to release a film in the 50's or 60's (time machine required)
3D if you are overbudgeted
Chemical film if they gave you 3x as much time as you need to shoot
16mm for retro look, or Noir on a budget
F35 for premium digital look or digital backlot pictures
4:3 if you are hopelessly behind the times
48x10 for 3 pack digital signage monitors
1.5x9 for web headers
Anamorphic 2.4 for Sci-fi
Okay thanks.
Last edited:
The answer is simple. There aren't any 2.76 screens around today at movie theaters or TV's with that aspect ratio.
The standard "cinemascope" or as projectionists call it "scope" which is the anamorphic 35mm film format is still at movie theaters, aspect ratio of 2.35 to 1. The other standard, or "flat" is 1.85 to 1 aspect ratio has been the accepted ratio in the theaters since the 1960's. In Europe it's 1.66 to 1.
16x9 (1.78 to 1) is the digital widescreen format Du'Jour. It's in between the European standard and American aspect ratios.
When a "scope" movie (2.35 to 1) is put on a 16x9 (1.78 to 1) TV, there are the letterbox bars. If you were to use the SUPER CINEMASCOPE aspect ratio of 2.70 to 1 (ala 2001:A SPACE ODYSSEY), there would be even more black bars and unused space. MOST (but not all) viewers don't like wasted screen space.
I thought viewers like some wasted screen space since widescreen is more popular in DVD sales.
"WIDESCREEN" in reference to DVD's is kind of a catchall phrase. It includes all aspect ratios wider than 4:3 (1.33 to 1). It even includes letterbox. "WIDESCREEN" is not an exact definition and can mean many things.
A 16x9/1.78 to 1 anamorphic DVD sells better because all TV's being made today at 16x9/1.78 to 1 aspect ratio. Even for 2.35 to 1 Cinemascope movies, most TV's have the option of "ZOOM" because many consumers do not like the black bars on the top and bottom of the screen.
Cinephiles and techies like scope movies and super-cinemascope movies because that is how they were originally shot. It was as the director/cinematographer intended. At the time that those older movies were filmed, there were movie screens to go with those aspect ratios. Usually, owned by the same company making the movies (The studios owned the theater chains until it was deemed a monopoly and that is now technically illegal).
Since there is no direct correlation from aspect ratio to screen, in many cases going beyond 2.35 to 1 is somewhat pretentious and without a real reason. Shooting that way today can still have merit, but it has to be justified by the story or serve a purpose in making the experience more immersive.